Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,943
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaana View Post
    I especially mentioned transitions as the lack of them is most obvious in the skating of Plushenko and Joubert. Plushenko´s choreograhy has been very lacking, too. But because of their reputation both Joubert and Plushenko are getting high PCS scores anyway... Of course some of them they deserve, but not all, in my opinion.
    Many Fs fans like Plushy's programs. And Zeemgirl is right, the TR is one component of PCS. Plushy's skating skills marks are high, his interpretation and performance are always among the bests, if not the best.
    Last edited by lala; 05-30-2013 at 05:59 PM.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    163
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    what about Yuna..? I think she can dominate under 6.0 system, like she did in COP, with her consistency, consistent 3-3, her jump's high quality

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    11,186
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Zemgirl View Post
    You are aware, of course, that there is more to the IJS than transitions? Because sometimes I think people forget that it's one component out of five, not the most important thing in skating.
    Sure, but without transitions, there sometimes cannot be a lot of meaningful or complex choreography, there is less to show for performance and execution, there is less to show for skating skills (less changes in direction or skating on one foot), and interpretation easily becomes one dimension (instead of with full body and with blades).

    It's all somewhat inter-related.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,469
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    I think it's important to note that some skaters under 6.0 were able to win even when they did not skate clean or even when someone else did harder jump content. Sometimes it was because the quality of the jumps they did complete was superior. But usually, they (also?) had superior skating skills and/or superior technical content and choreography between the jumps.

    Kurt Browning, 1991-94, comes to mind as a good example.

    So I think at least some judges were always rewarding some of the things that were invisible to casual observers, because they weren't explicit in the rules and commentators rarely mentioned them nearly as often as they talked about the jumps. Which led to occasional wuzrobbing when the skater who won the jump contest didn't win the event.

    Now these qualities are explicitly written into the rules, which I think is great for the sport. There just needs to be continual improvement on the balance of what skills should be rewarded most highly and how good a job the judges are doing at rewarding them appropriately.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,759
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Sure, but without transitions, there sometimes cannot be a lot of meaningful or complex choreography, there is less to show for performance and execution, there is less to show for skating skills (less changes in direction or skating on one foot), and interpretation easily becomes one dimension (instead of with full body and with blades).

    It's all somewhat inter-related.
    That's not really what the ISU guidelines say.

    As a skating fan for whom transitions are way down the list of things to care about in a program/performance, I find it really annoying that so many fans fixate on TR as though this one component is important above and beyond all other aspects of a performance. For me it's the least interesting component - if transitions serve the program concept, the interpretation and the choreography, great; otherwise I can't say I really care. And I don't like seeing skaters dismissed as inferior based on a single criterion, whether it's the perception that they have inferior jumps, spins, or their supposed lack of difficult transitions.

    Also, I don't believe that Joubert and Plushenko have enjoyed reputation scoring to a greater extent than, say, Chan and Lysacek. If the former are overscored on TR, I'd argue that the latter are/have been overscored in other areas.

    I think gkelly is right that writing things into the rules is a good idea, but I'm not sure it's possible to turn skating judging into a fully objective exercise, nor do I feel that it should necessarily be a goal. Sometimes skating is more than the some of its parts, and rewarding that isn't really possible anymore, and that's one thing about 6.0 that I do miss; I think it's part of what made the very best 6.0 performances special. Maybe they could find a way to include it under P&E?

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,943
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Skating skills: balance, flow, sureness, speed, direction.. Nothing to do with the TR to.

    You are right again, Zemgirl

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,469
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by Zemgirl View Post
    Sometimes skating is more than the some of its parts, and rewarding that isn't really possible anymore, and that's one thing about 6.0 that I do miss; I think it's part of what made the very best 6.0 performances special. Maybe they could find a way to include it under P&E?
    What if the first component listed were called something like Overall Impression?

    It could include all or most of the criteria currently listed under Performance/Execution. Any that should be taken out completely or moved to a different component?

    It could also include criteria such as "Success of the technical elements" or "General impression of mastery" or something like "Unity and wholeness" (moved from the Choreography component).


    I also wouldn't mind if Overall Impression and Skating Skills had larger factors than Transitions, Choreography, and Interpretation.


    Another question I have about overlap between components:

    Where should the (successful) use of counterrotated turns be taken into account?

    It's impossible to earn higher than level 2 in a step sequence without including at least a couple of brackets, counters, rockers, and/or choctaws, so using more in the step sequence would be rewarded there.

    Using these turns outside the step sequence or choreo sequence, either as entries or exits from jumps and spins or as edgework between elements or as means of turning between forward and backward stroking should be considered under Transitions as part of the difficulty and variety.

    The fact that counters, rockers, and choctaws also change between clockwise and counterclockwise curves could be considered under the multidirectional skating criterion under Skating Skills. And ability to hold the exits of these turns (and also, I would argue, exits of backward three turns) on one foot and even moreso the ability to connect several such turns and other moves (e.g., loops, edge changes) in a row on the same foot should be rewarded in the mastery of one-foot skating criterion.

    Does that seem like appropriate reward for demonstrating mastery of these advanced basic skills?
    Last edited by gkelly; 05-30-2013 at 06:26 PM.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,759
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    What if the first component listed were called something like Overall Impression?

    It could include all or most of the criteria currently listed under Performance/Execution. Any that should be taken out completely or moved to a different component?

    It could also include criteria such as "Success of the technical elements" or "General impression of mastery" or something like "Unity and wholeness" (moved from the Choreography component).

    I also wouldn't mind if Overall Impression and Skating Skills had larger factors than Transitions, Choreography, and Interpretation.
    Works for me, though I'd leave the elements out of it I believe that the first component scored serves a sort of prime/anchor for the rest of them*, and I'd much rather the judges start with impression/P&E than skating skills, important as they are. I'd also like for there to be fewer components and especially for TR to be merged with CH, but I doubt that'll happen.

    * That could be a fun study to conduct - switch the order around and see how it affects the judging. Maybe the best way to go would be to have each judge get a different random order for each skater, to ensure that no one component is weighed too much compared to the others.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    593
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I would like to suggest Virtue and Moir did really well with their CD's. In their early years in Seniors they certainly got better marks than a lot of more seasoned skaters who had skated under 6.0

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    473
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Ando under 6.0 was not at her peak, her peak year was 2007. If Ando skated like she did in 2007 under the 6.0 system, she would have won gold in 2000 and 2001. Ando skated at Worlds in 2004 with fairly mediocre presentation (many people liked her SP, but I don't think it compares to Scheherezade which was a great SP for her) but still got ok presentation marks. Not as high as Kwan, Arakawa, or Cohen's, but enough to keep her in medal contention. Imagine if she skated in 2004 with her 2007 programs and improvements. She would be 2nd in both the short and long, given her difficult combinations, improved presentation, and clean skates.

    Also keep in mind that Ando would have won 2007 Worlds if the competition was done under 6.0 (but of course not 2011).

    In Flatt's case, one example where she is at a disadvantage under CoP is that she gets lower TES than Nagasu at the Vancouver SP even though she did a 3-3 (but somehow Flatt gets higher PCS than Nagasu across all categories ). Nagasu's high GOEs for spins and spirals put her ahead of Flatt, but this probably wouldn't happen under 6.0. They'd probably be close in marks under 6.0 but Nagasu would have higher presentation marks and vice versa.

    I disagree that boring 'Flatt' skating is punished under 6.0. Remember Volchkova?

    Zhang, Nagasu, and Nakano's jumping issues would be punished under 6.0, but not under the same extent as CoP. Remember Caroline getting 7th at the 2009 Skate Canada SP for a clean skate other than URs? She landed a triple-triple (albeit URed), and although she would get punished under 6.0, it won't be enough to place her 7th with a difficult triple-triple. That's why Sarah Hughes was a medal contender under 6.0, but wouldn't be in CoP.

  11. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,759
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by girlscouse62 View Post
    I would like to suggest Virtue and Moir did really well with their CD's. In their early years in Seniors they certainly got better marks than a lot of more seasoned skaters who had skated under 6.0
    V/M were 9th in the CD at their first Worlds, and most of the teams behind them weren't all that experienced, let alone successful, under 6.0. They did do well in 2008, but by then there weren't that many 6.0 teams left. They were certainly good, but I don't think they were near the level of the top 6.0 teams (and they weren't as good as DomShabs, who missed 2008 Worlds).

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,259
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shady82 View Post
    Ando under 6.0 was not at her peak, her peak year was 2007. If Ando skated like she did in 2007 under the 6.0 system, she would have won gold in 2000 and 2001.
    That is a laugh. With the 2nd mark being the tiebreaker she would have had no shot to beat Kwan. Kwan with a triple-triple was unbeatable to anyone but maybe a perfect Slutskaya (and probably a perfect Kim or Asada skating well with her 3axels), but Slutskaya has much better spins, footwork, and even spirals than Ando, so is a much better overall technical skater; and the judges love Irina and give her much higher presentation marks than Ando would ever get. The only chance she would have had to win is to win the short at both events and be 2nd in the free to Kwan, but I doubt even with a 3-3 in the short she would have ever beaten Maria shorts at the 2000 Worlds and Irinas at the 2001 Worlds, both just too good to beat.

    Anyway lets just say hypothetically you are right. 2007 Worlds is only one Worlds she ever skated that well at Worlds or Olympics with well done triple lutz-triple loops and somewhat competent presentation combined (which you seem to concede), so even if she would have won a Worlds in a 6.0 year with that (I have no idea why you randomly chose 2000 and 2001 when there were many years the winning performance was weaker than those but anyway) that would leave her with only 1 World title under 6.0 vs the two she won under COP, so still being less successful, not more.


    Ando skated at Worlds in 2004 with fairly mediocre presentation (many people liked her SP, but I don't think it compares to Scheherezade which was a great SP for her) but still got ok presentation marks.
    She didnt get high presentation marks, especialy in the long. Mostly all 5.6s and as low as 5.4 and this was at a farcial high scoring Worlds where Kwan got mostly 6.0s for presentation which she couldnt even get as many (or sometimes any) with much greater skates at the 1996, 2000, 2001, and even 2003 Worlds; where Kostner falling all over the place got a 5.9 for technical merit, where Suguri not even in the final flight with a sosoish skate got 5.9s for presntation.... Also atleast in hindsight given that Cohen did such a poor free skate, Kwan did only 5 triples in her long, and Ando skating perfectly other than the doubled planned quad and every judge except one still had Ando 4th, she wasnt really in medal contention there despite being 3rd in the short.


    Also keep in mind that Ando would have won 2007 Worlds if the competition was done under 6.0 (but of course not 2011).
    She wouldnt have won the 2007 Worlds under 6.0 IMO as I already mentioned. First off have you forgotten she didnt win either the short or long program, and she was well beaten in both. Yet under COP 2nd in both the short and long was good enough to win. This would have been hugely unlikely under 6.0, can you think of a single World Champion who didnt win either program. She also would not have won either program under 6.0 either, Kim would have easily won the short even under 6.0 and Asada the long. Yes that all said if the placings remained the same she would have won by the factored points system assuming there was no Q round, but as I said I doubt Ando would have been placed over Kostners short under 6.0, nor Ando behind Meissner.

    You concede she wouldnt have won under 2011 under 6.0 though, so even if you are right on 2007 that means she is already doing worse under 6.0, not better, as she is now a 1 time (at most) World Champion, and not 2 times.


    In Flatt's case, one example where she is at a disadvantage under CoP is that she gets lower TES than Nagasu at the Vancouver SP even though she did a 3-3 (but somehow Flatt gets higher PCS than Nagasu across all categories ). Nagasu's high GOEs for spins and spirals put her ahead of Flatt, but this probably wouldn't happen under 6.0. They'd probably be close in marks under 6.0 but Nagasu would have higher presentation marks and vice versa.
    Nagasu would have beaten Flatt in Vancouver under 6.0 for sure. They would have been close in the short and Nagasu easily coming out ahead in the long. Basically same as it was under COP. You were talking about Flatt winning World medals though, and which year would this have ever happened under 6.0. The only year she even reached a somewhat high level of skating in World competition was the 2009 Worlds and 2010 Olympics and the field and the caliber of skates were way too high for her to medal either year.


    I disagree that boring 'Flatt' skating is punished under 6.0. Remember Volchkova?
    Where are Volchkovas World medals. Her best Worlds result is 5th. At the 2001 and 2003 Worlds she skated extremely well and still didnt come close to medalling. Even Sokolova was allowed to win a World silver in the same era. Volchkova only proves my point judges are not impressed with slow and boring skating under 6.0, and Flatt isnt near the quality of jumper Volchkova is even when she was doing the 3-3s.

  13. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,469
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27 View Post
    First off have you forgotten she didnt win either the short or long program, and she was well beaten in both. Yet under COP 2nd in both the short and long was good enough to win. This would have been hugely unlikely under 6.0, can you think of a single World Champion who didnt win either program.
    Yes, several, but in all cases I've researched the overall winner had won the school figures before placing 2nd or lower in short and long program. Jill Trenary 1990 was the most recent. The others were in the days before factored placements -- unless you also count Scott Hamilton at 1984 Olympics.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    132
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27 View Post
    After 2007 she never put on any kind of stellar jumping display that would take her to a big title under 6.0, including and especialy her 2011 Worlds victory with only 5 triples, no impressive combinations, and not even a triple flip attempt. Before 2007 she was a 5.4 or 5.5 presentation skater, as the judges scores at the 2004 Worlds and some of the cheesefests that still used 6.0 indicated. Furthermore when one breaks it down in detail it is pretty obvious she would not have won either of her World titles under 6.0 (and of course no others was she even close to winning so no point even considering another World event besides those two).

    2011 Worlds for instance, if that was under 6.0 no way she wins. She and Kim both landed 5 triples, both had mistakes but neither fell, Kim had a triple-triple and Ando didnt even attempt one, and the judges consider Kims jumps as good or better as the GOE proves, and Kim is clearly considered the more artistic and all around skater. So under 6.0 it would be a blowout win for Kim, but under COP Ando won. Under 6.0 Kims short program miscue meanwhile would have probably meant her being 2nd in the short to Ando, as opposed to still 1st as she was under COP, but wouldnt have mattered in the end.
    kim is clearly considered the more artistic? Ando's programs were better than Kim's although Kim was beat Ando by total 3-point difference in PC mark.
    Either 6.0 or IJS, Ando should won the world title in 2011

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    473
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    In 2007, Ando would have won gold even if she placed 2nd in both portions of the competition. Asada would've been 5th in the short and 1st in the long (and even then under 6.0 there would be justifications to put Ando first in the long), and Ando would still win. I don't see how Asada's popped combination will put her ahead of Kim, Ando, Kostner, and Meisnner, who all landed difficult triple-triples. Ando's presentation in 2007 was actually decent (IMO almost on par with Slutskaya) and would probably receive at least 5.7s. In contrast, her 2004 long presentation was markedly inferior, so that isn't a good example of her peak.

    In 2000, Ando's 2007 Worlds SP is probably enough to 1st since she had a solid 3-3 and decent presentation (meaning Kwan is bumped to 4th). Her long would place 1st or 2nd. I have a hard time imagining Kwan decisively winning over Ando's 2007 LP when she got 5.6s for technical merit for a perfect 7-triple program. Same in 2001, except it's harder to say because Kwan would have been 3rd in the SP under such a situation. I'm disregarding the QR since that brings in too many variables.

    Regardless, in 2007 Ando won because Asada and Kim screwed up. If Asada and Kim made less mistakes or more minor mistakes, they would win over Ando, regardless of the judging system. It also doesn't make sense to compare 2004 Ando to 2007 Ando when IMO there was a big difference in her presentation, spins, and spiral improvements.

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    473
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by judgejudy27 View Post
    Where are Volchkovas World medals. Her best Worlds result is 5th. At the 2001 and 2003 Worlds she skated extremely well and still didnt come close to medalling. Even Sokolova was allowed to win a World silver in the same era. Volchkova only proves my point judges are not impressed with slow and boring skating under 6.0, and Flatt isnt near the quality of jumper Volchkova is even when she was doing the 3-3s.
    But Volchkova doesn't even have 3-3s and is weak in almost areas of her skating except for big jumps and basic skating. And she still makes it into the top 6. In 2002 SLC she screwed up two jumps in the short and somehow places 12th. Volchkova actually did better under 6.0 than CoP. In 2003 SA, she lost the short to Corwin and Maniachenko even though all three made similar mistakes - this result is unthinkable under CoP. In 2004 CoR, she skated almost cleanly but received pretty mediocre marks. If she skated at Worlds cleanly, she probably wouldn't be in the top 6.

    I forgot how Volchkova skated in 2001, but Volchkova's performances in 2003 were hardly impressive. She landed 5 triples in the LP, which is good but not lights out. 2003 was also a very weak year regarding the top ladies.

    Sokolova won in the era because she could suddenly land a consistent 3lutz-3toe at Worlds. Volchkova had no major advantage while competing - no 3-3s, no outstanding presentation.

    I also fail to see how Flatt will place 7th if Vancouver was judged under 6.0. There is no way Lepisto, with her lack of hard triple jumps, will place high above Flatt. Maybe not even Ando, who didn't do a 3-3 in the long.

    I also have a hard time imagining Sarah Hughes medaling under 6.0, but not Rachael.
    Last edited by shady82; 05-31-2013 at 12:40 AM.

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,259
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shady82 View Post
    In 2007, Ando would have won gold even if she placed 2nd in both portions of the competition. Asada would've been 5th in the short and 1st in the long (and even then under 6.0 there would be justifications to put Ando first in the long), and Ando would still win. I don't see how Asada's popped combination will put her ahead of Kim, Ando, Kostner, and Meisnner, who all landed difficult triple-triples. Ando's presentation in 2007 was actually decent (IMO almost on par with Slutskaya) and would probably receive at least 5.7s. In contrast, her 2004 long presentation was markedly inferior, so that isn't a good example of her peak.
    Well we will have to just agree to disagree here. The only reason Asada only beat Ando by 7 points in the LP and not the 13-15 points she would have otherwise was in fact COP sticklers like underrotations and minor two foots (which she had on both her 3axel and 2 axel-3 toe) which cost a ton of points under COP but would be almost ignored under 6.0. Asada would have easily won the LP under 6.0, with a triple axel that looked fairly clean (although under picky COP it was deemed not) she would have won the tech. mark over Ando no problem, and obviously the presentation one too.

    Singling the 2nd jump of a combination was only a .2 deduction by the latter years of 6.0. With only that as a deduction and with an otherwise beautiful performance, on home ice, and the heavy pre event favorite, Mao would easily be placed over Meissner (especialy as Meissner would never be the reigning World Champ had the 06 Worlds been under 6.0 anyway) and could even have been placed in the top 3, but atleast 4th. I definitely believe Ando would probably have been placed behind Kostner's gorgeous short program with had a clean 3-3 under 6.0 as well. Either way I dont see them 3 spots apart.

    Like I said name a single year in the post figures years where a skater won neither the SP and LP and still won the gold under 6.0. It just would never happen.

    In 2000, Ando's 2007 Worlds SP is probably enough to 1st since she had a solid 3-3 and decent presentation (meaning Kwan is bumped to 4th). Her long would place 1st or 2nd. I have a hard time imagining Kwan decisively winning over Ando's 2007 LP when she got 5.6s for technical merit for a perfect 7-triple program.
    The only reason Kwan got some 5.6s was reigning World Champion Maria Butyrskaya and reigning Grand Prix Final and European Champion Irina Slutskaya, who were both ahead of her after the short, were yet to skate. The judges also adore Slutskaya, and while they dont adore Maria they respect her artistry and complete skating. 2007 Worlds Ando hypothetically speaking would be a skater who had never won a World medal and was no way favored going into the event (she wasnt in anyway favored despite a good season going into the 07 Worlds as it was, and wouldnt have been in 2000 either), so in her case the judges would not have bothered to "leave room" for her after Kwan skated a clean 7 triple program with a 3-3.

    Maria's short program at the 2000 Worlds was stunning and got several 5.9s technically and almost all 5.9s on the 2nd mark. Ando would not beat her in the short even with a 3-3, unless you think she was going to pull some 6.0s for elements (no) or alot of 5.9s for presentation (definite no).


    Same in 2001, except it's harder to say because Kwan would have been 3rd in the SP under such a situation. I'm disregarding the QR since that brings in too many variables.
    All of Irina's technical elements apart from a 3-3 are stronger than Ando's in the short. Her spins are way better, her footwork too, her spiral sequence is weak compared to Kwan's but much better than Ando's sorry excuse of one, and her double axel is much better, and her triple jump out of footwork usually has better steps into it and rythym than Ando has. Again IMO no way Ando is winning the short over Irina.

    Why are you even using 2000 and 2001 as your random years. If you want to show Ando winning a World title with her 2007 performances under 6.0 why not choose 1997, 1998, 2002, 2006, 1995, even 2003 or 1996 instead. She would have had a better shot winning all those years than she would have in 2000 or 2001, and in fact I would agree she would win the Worlds many of those years with her 2007 performances, even under 6.0. I just find it funny you chose maybe the 2 strongest performances to win Worlds under 6.0 in its last decade as your two choices for some reason.


    Regardless, in 2007 Ando won because Asada and Kim screwed up. If Asada and Kim made less mistakes or more minor mistakes, they would win over Ando, regardless of the judging system. It also doesn't make sense to compare 2004 Ando to 2007 Ando when IMO there was a big difference in her presentation, spins, and spiral improvements.
    Agreed but is already pretty clear we are relegated to arguing whether Ando could have won only 1 of her 2 World titles in "some" years under 6.0. So if the best we can argue her doing under 6.0 is to win 1 World title, and what she achieved under COP was winning 2, how on earth would she have done better under 6.0 than COP which is what you originally stated.

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    13,259
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shady82 View Post
    But Volchkova doesn't even have 3-3s and is weak in almost areas of her skating except for big jumps and basic skating. And she still makes it into the top 6.
    So basically she is Rachael Flatt, minus the consistency, but plus somewhat nice lines and basic skating (which Flatt is totally devoid of) with many times bigger and better quality jumps, and even at her best (which on those particular days negates Flatt consistency advantage as VV obviously on those few days was consistent) she can only place 5th or 6th at Worlds with no hopes of a medal. Yet Flatt you said would be winning medals. Volchkova, your example, only proves even more emphatically she wouldnt be.

    I forgot how Volchkova skated in 2001, but Volchkova's performances in 2003 were hardly impressive. She landed 5 triples in the LP, which is good but not lights out. 2003 was also a very weak year regarding the top ladies.
    Somewhat true in 2003 but she still landed more triples and much better triples than Suguri did, and Suguri hardly has impressive extensions, or super polished skating, and she still wasnt even close to beating her for the bronze. I am not arguing whether she deserved a medal, I am just completely disagreeing the insinuation the judges really liked Volchkova's skating and considered her a medal caliber skater under 6.0. Clearly they did not, and they wouldnt have Flatt either.

    Meanwhile in 2001 she landed 7 clean triples in the long including a 3-3, and even with a slighty shaking landing or two a much better jumping display Flatt could ever produce considering the vast disparity in the quality of their jumps, and still came only 6th.


    I also fail to see how Flatt will place 7th if Vancouver was judged under 6.0. There is no way Lepisto, with her lack of hard triple jumps, will place high above Flatt. Maybe not even Ando, who didn't do a 3-3 in the long.
    Oh please, Lepisto landed 5 triples in the short and considering her presentation is eons above Flatt she would likely be placed over Flatt in the LP, probably with atleast one skater in between them. Lepisto doubled a jump in the short but 2 of Flatt's 3 jump elements were not really clean in the SP, and considering she didnt get a < as she probably should have, would have probably been hit harder under 6.0 for their shakiness under 6.0 than she was under COP.

    Ando based on reputation alone would probably be put ahead since she stayed on her feet, and as you noted even her UR and rather poorish triple lutz-triple loop in the short would be credited by the judges under 6.0, especialy as a former (or atleast you are completely convinced of this) World Champion.

    Anyway arguing Flatt might have come 5th or 6th at one competition she was 7th is a far cry from your original argument was that she would be winning World medals under 6.0.


    I also have a hard time imagining Sarah Hughes medaling under 6.0, but not Rachael.
    Ummm Hughes won the Olympics under 6.0. She was a much better 6.0 skater than Flatt would have ever been. Hughes though would have been a horrible COP skater, and far below even people like Flatt in COP.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    356
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    About Lu Chen- I do think the Chen on 91-94 could have done well under COP. I do think she could have won the 93 worlds and 94 Olympics, and placed second at 92 worlds. I don't think she would have won in 95 or beat Kwan in 96 mainly because of her spins, but early on, she was a better spinner.

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    287
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    What about Mishkutenok & Dmitriev? They could have used her flexibility to rack up all sorts of extra points (not necessarily to any aesthetic benefit, IMO, but for points for sure).

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •